Donald Trump went to court demanding $10 billion from the BBC over a documentary he says devastated his reputation and damaged the value of his business empire.
That enormous claim may now come with a price he never intended to pay.
His family could be questioned under oath.
Legal experts say Trump’s relatives may become witnesses in the defamation battle, potentially forcing them to surrender private communications, answer questions about his businesses and testify about whether the BBC documentary actually caused the sweeping harm alleged in his lawsuit.
“They may be asked to produce communications with the president, and they may be deposed,” media attorney Deanna Shullman told Newsweek.
“I think it is fair game.”
The warning creates a serious dilemma for Trump.
To recover billions of dollars, he must prove that the BBC’s conduct caused genuine damage. But proving damage can require opening financial records, business communications and other closely guarded material to the opposing side.
The larger his claim, the more extensive that investigation could become.
Trump sued the BBC for defamation and unfair trade practices over a 2024 documentary examining the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
He argues that the program harmed his brands and caused “extensive economic harms.”
The BBC denies his allegations.
Because Trump placed the value of his businesses at the center of the complaint, the broadcaster argued that it needed access to his financial records to test whether those losses actually occurred.
That is a standard principle of civil litigation.
A plaintiff cannot ordinarily demand compensation for enormous financial damage while preventing the defendant from examining the records that could confirm—or disprove—the claim.
The fight became more complicated last week when U.S. District Judge Roy Altman temporarily paused an order requiring Trump to disclose financial businesses held through his family trust.
The temporary pause does not permanently shield those records or determine the ultimate outcome. It gives Trump an opportunity to revise his complaint and potentially narrow the damages he seeks.
His legal team now faces a delicate task.
If Trump abandons claims of financial injury and focuses only on emotional distress or reputational harm, he may be able to prevent the BBC from conducting broad discovery into his businesses.
“If the amendment disclaims all economic damages and really just focuses on mental health or emotional distress damages, the president may be successful in avoiding that discovery,” Shullman explained.
But that approach could dramatically weaken the scale of the case.
A $10 billion demand is easier to frame when a plaintiff alleges measurable damage across businesses, licensing deals and valuable brands. A claim based mainly on emotional distress may not support the same astronomical figure.
Trump therefore appears trapped between two competing objectives:
Preserve the $10 billion lawsuit—or protect his financial privacy.
Trying to do both will be “very tricky,” Shullman said, particularly if an amended complaint continues tying Trump’s personal reputation to his commercial brand.
Trump’s identity and business interests have always been intertwined.
His name appears on hotels, golf courses, merchandise and licensing arrangements. His political celebrity can increase or decrease the commercial value of those ventures. That makes it difficult to argue that his reputation suffered while insisting that the businesses built around that reputation are irrelevant.
His family may possess crucial information about that connection.
Trump relatives have participated in his companies, managed elements of the family brand and communicated with him about political and commercial matters. Depending on their knowledge, the BBC could seek documents or testimony concerning business performance, public reaction to the documentary and discussions about the alleged damage.
Florida International University law professor Howard Wasserman said family status offers no automatic protection.
“There should not be anything sacrosanct about them,” he told Newsweek.
“They are potential non-party witnesses with knowledge of the business, just like many people, including members of the parties’ families.”
Being deposed would not mean a family member had committed wrongdoing or become a defendant. A deposition is a pretrial process in which a witness answers questions under oath, usually in the presence of attorneys.
But the consequences can be significant.
Testimony is recorded. Inconsistencies can be challenged. Documents can be compared against answers. Statements may later appear in court filings or be used at trial.
Shullman said Trump’s relatives might possess information extending beyond financial damages.
“They may also have relevant information about other issues in the case, truth being one of them,” she said.
Truth is a central defense in defamation litigation. The BBC could investigate what Trump and those around him knew, how they privately discussed January 6 and whether the documentary’s contested claims were substantially accurate.
None of this guarantees that Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Barron Trump or any other specific relative will be deposed. The BBC would need to demonstrate that the requested testimony or records are relevant, and Trump’s lawyers could challenge demands they consider excessive or intrusive.
But Trump created the risk when he placed both his reputation and business empire before the court.
He wanted the BBC to answer for allegedly damaging the Trump name.
Now the broadcaster may be allowed to investigate exactly what that name was worth, whether its value declined—and what his family said behind closed doors when the cameras were gone.
